|
Post by markhinds on Nov 28, 2019 17:48:09 GMT
Markhinds! Thank you for the image. That’s exactly what I was talking about and I think your point about the 3 groups is the thing that was concerning me... needing 3 pips to move the whole army forward but perhaps you stay put until you roll a 3. Defending in echelon would be easier than attacking in echelon But as you said if it takes the opponent several moves to get into contact anyway then 3 groups is aok. Thanks! I shall try this. Chris Here's another similar battle. I claim it's similar, in that a concentration was attempted against one flank, with the other flank more-or-less refused. The deployment by columns is a standard tactic of this particular Byzantine general. Probably DBA version 1.1.
(Edit regarding which version of rules used).
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Nov 28, 2019 17:41:52 GMT
I think this was on the old site, but can't find it here, so am reposting in case anyone hasn't seen it yet. Commentary is from the original, from 3 years ago:
Last week we resurrected our circa-1990 6mm mini-DBA setup to play a refresher game of DBA. Figures are Ros-Heroics mounted on plastic card. Although the game play isn't particularly interesting, the unusual scale used may be. The game, which was the first one of a 2-player campaign, involved Maurikian Byzantines relieving the town of Edessa from its Sassanian Persian besiegers. The game went as follows:
Turn 1, below: Byzantines got off to a sluggish start, due to their incompetent general having overslept. The light horse on the left flank was supposed to worry the Persians, but ultimately was irrelevant due to lack of pips.
Turn 2, below: Byzantines advance in 3 columns, infantry on the road, and Persians for some reason descend from the hill (on the right side of the image near the river).
Turn 3, below: As in turn 2.
Turn 4, below: The Byzantine right column deploys to attack the Persian left flank, as the other 2 columns continue to move up. The Byzantine general (in the left column, with the half-armored horse) had noticed that the most powerful part of the Persian line was over on their right, and thus out of the battle.
Turn 5, below: Combat continues on the Byzantine right. The Persian elephant unit decides to get closer to the action.
Turn 6, below: The Byzantine right begins to push back the Persian left, while some Byzantine light horse tries to distract the elephants (who were in a good position to roll up the line). At this point, the Byzantines didn't know whether the river at their back was paltry or not, so this was risky, but they had no choice.
Turn 7, below: More progress on the Byzantine right, as the Persian left begins to crumble. The Persian levies attempt to move up to help their elephants.
Turn 8,below: More progress against the Persian left, and a lucky die roll kills the Persian general, so the Persians flee the battlefield. As this was a practice game, it is decided to restart the campaign next week.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Nov 28, 2019 0:50:51 GMT
Wait... groups can align by their REAR edge too?! That’s nice and certainly helps this situation. Just re read the post! Thanks! OK, if we accept the interpretation in the FAQ, you can align by rear edge, and maintain a single, group. But how is this an advantage? The point of refusing a flank is to protect those troops from contact and/or to make it more difficult for the opponent to flank you. That being the case, wouldn't it be better to refuse to the maximum distance (TZ of the set-back elements just barely blocking access to the flank of the non-set-back elements), as described in my Byzantine / Sassanid post above?
MH
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Nov 28, 2019 0:31:42 GMT
Ah, the FAQ ...
Although I don't agree with all the interpretations it contains, nor the politics behind it, it is a good way to avoid arguments so I'll live with it. Thanks for pointing that out.
MH
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Nov 27, 2019 22:12:52 GMT
I disagree....I believe side edge and either front or rear corner contact permits elements to constitute a group. Agree with Martin. The rules say "in edge and corner to corner contact." Doesn't say which corner! Simon If you read my post more carefully, you will see that I mention that the 3.0 rules do say that in the text section, but they also modify what the text section says in the diagrams section. Logically, you have to go with the more restrictive case. It's like saying both of the following must be true, "a positive number" and "the number three". That constrains you to the number three.
So you're entitled to play the way you want to, but in this case, you would be ignoring part of the rulebook.
MH :-)
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Nov 27, 2019 20:15:42 GMT
WRT the OP, we used to do something like that with our 6mm Byzantines, per the image below. In the image, the strongest matchup (this was DBA 1.1) is the spear-backed-by-psiloi infantry on the right, which is attacking the Sassanian cavalry. IIRC that gave a +2 for each, minus 1 for uphill. As in the OP's scheme, the refused flank shown here allowed the Byzantines to put their best matchups in contact, while making it unlikely that the Sassanians would be able to do the same thing on the opposite flank. In DBA, the refused flank is facilitated by the "threat zone" of the units on the refused flank, assuming a small portion of their TZ covers the flank of the in-contact elements. Here the refused flank was implemented in 2 steps, with the first step protecting the flank of the main attack with relatively invulnerable light horse, and the second protecting the flank of the light horse. The Sassanians typically wouldn't have the pips to effectively engage the refused flank, as they would be needed to deal with the increasing disorder on the engaged portion of the line (also note it would take the Sassanian spears at least 2 moves to contact the flank guard light horse). Hence breaking the line into 3 groups didn't matter much.
As an additional comment on the image, note the extra mounted on the far right, intended to exploit the hoped-for disintegration of the Sassanian left. They have just pushed back the Sassanian light horse, improving the chances for the subsequent combat to their left.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Nov 27, 2019 19:23:48 GMT
Wait... groups can align by their REAR edge too?! That’s nice and certainly helps this situation. Just re read the post! Thanks! For DBA 3.0, don't think you can align by rear edge only, while still being part of the same group. Although Phil seemed to write it that way on page 8 of the hardbound 3.0 version in front of me, the "clarification" on page 16 of the diagrams says ". . . or side edge contact and front corner to front corner contact." Note the term "front corner".
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Nov 25, 2019 21:44:08 GMT
Thanks timurilank. Subsequent to your post I removed one of the images from this thread, as I only needed one to illustrate my point. However, I put both images in a new post in the "scratchbuilding" section.
MH
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Nov 25, 2019 21:33:52 GMT
For my 15mm Thematic Byzantine army, I wanted to improve on the stiff Essex cavalry pose. Because Essex uses a nice soft casting alloy, I was able to modify figures to suit my needs. The original figure is visible at the lower right of the first image. Modifications included:
1) Large (!!) V-shaped cutout under right shoulder, to allow it to be dropped drastically. 2) Right shoulder finished off by "crushing" the soft metal down further (kind of like forming clay ...).
3) Mail on crushed right shoulder and side pteruges re-detailed.
4) Right forearm re-positioned to accommodate sloped lance pose.
5) Head bent forward at neck, involving cut into back of neck, bending forward, and then pressing down of the pteruges into the gap.
6) Funny looking helmet reworked to resemble spangenhelm, which involved removing the "visor" at the front, and making it more pointy-looking.
7) Added wire lance of desired length (12-foot?).
8) Note that the images below were made prior to filling the slit visible at back of right shoulder, and cleaning up the horse.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Nov 25, 2019 21:12:26 GMT
Even though Old Glory has already made this period for a while, these do look good. I wish that Essex would change the alloy they use for their castings as I find Essex very bendy on their spears. Thing is, that soft Essex alloy is what allows us to modify the figures easily. Bendy spears are easily fixed via wire, etc.
Example, converted from the standard Essex "Thematic Byzantine" lancer. Changes include dropped shoulder (impossible unless soft metal, as it was compressed after being dropped, and the mail re-detailed), differently bent arm, reworked helmet, and wire lance of desired length, among other things, Still need to fill in the seam under dropped shoulder and clean up the horse. Note the original figure in the lower right corner of the first image.
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Jun 24, 2017 2:04:11 GMT
Didn't see this. Have you found Chicago-area players yet? There is a group in the Western Suburbs, and also I might be interested. However, I am in Libertyville, so kind of far from you.
Mark Hinds 847-816-1203
|
|
|
Post by markhinds on Mar 12, 2017 18:41:01 GMT
I wish someone in the US handled these; every time I do something with Baueda I have to undergo an epic struggle with the Post Office. Mark at Scale Creep carries Baueda 15mm.
|
|